It doesn't look like FF in any way, IMO. As soon as I watched the video it brought back memories of Chrono Trigger before I even read your description of the project, and I think you shouldn't compare what you're doing with any FF whatsoever. It's a 100% pure clone of Chrono Trigger, obviously, and I think it's better this way. There are so much FF fans that it's getting boring, and there are various FF clones for SC2 already in progress anyway.
Hah, agree. I just thought that was what people knew, guess i underestimated the sc2mapster community.
Quote:
I really loved the 2 or 3 guys combining their force in CT to do massive damage, I'm glad you managed to get it to work in your project. But I don't like how you select a target for your spells right now, it doesn't seem intuitive at all (the whole process of using keyboard to switch/attack target is just... well, it's wrong!).
I thought as much myself. But there are both advantages and disadvantages to using keyboard. I personally like just only keyboard because i think it feels more relaxed. A downside is you use "left" and "right" buttons to change targets, but left and right is not always left or right. Also since enemies are auto-assigned numbers for normal fights they dont always get ordered in any foreseeable order.
Quote:
I don't see the point either of having all these things in the Command Card of your hero, even if it is for WASD movement I think controlling your hero with the mouse is far more than enough (you don't need to dodge anything accurately in a RPG like CT, and even if you do any average player can do it with the mouse). WASD movement will most likely cause issues on Bnet, if you can avoid using it I'd suggest you do.
As programmer pointed out, that is ye' old WASD movement, almost. I dont really use it for acctually moving the units, but for the keyboard controls of the UI.
Quote:
One of my favorite parts about chrono trigger battles was the way the units moved around on the battlefield through the fight. You couldn’t control which way they where gunna go but it made the fights look so cool. I always wanted to be able to knock the mobs into stuff in the background.
It might be possible but there are a few problems with it. Firstly, there are a few more things i need to consider in spells if length and angles between units can differ on a much higher scale than now. Secondly, for multiplayer games it will probably get a bit crowded if 6 players (which is the maximum) are going to move around at once. And lastly there just does not exist any animation that makes moving around while facing your target look good :P
Thanks for the feedback. Yea, i know the UI could use a makeover, but for the moment that is pretty low on the to-do list. Out of curiousity, what part specificly did you think looks bad (or worst), and what looks alright?
About the system, i know it might not be for everyone to have such a slow system where you have to wait for other players and coordinate with them. But thats the whole reason i added a singleplayer mode, because it feels like a safer bet. That being said, i still want to try and make it work for multiplayer. I know this game might not end up working well with the popularity system, but it just wouldent be fun for me if i dident feel i was making something different.
The group attack system works differently in multi vs singleplayer so it might not be clear from watching this video how it works. In multiplayer, the group attacks work by adding any player who chooses a group attack to a "queue" that corresponds to that attack. They remain there as long as they dont take another action and when the requirements for that attack is fullfilled (for example, 1 marauder, 1 high templar present) the required players are taken from that queue and starts the attack. And that is why i have the dialog to the upper right, so that others can see which players are queued up for what, and what class they are.
It really is easier to understand in game than it is to explain :P. The hard part is probably to acctually get people to want to coordinate with others.
This is a preview of a map i've been working on, on and off, for a while. Although i wont have time to work on it for a couple of weeks i thought it was time to post something and get some feedback.
Gameplay
The gameplay is something like a final fantasy style game, though it is much closer to the old snes game "chrono trigger". The combat is ATB-turn based which means each character can input a command at any time, but needs to wait for a progress bar to fill after a completed action.
One of the main mechanics of the gameplay are "group attacks" which is an attack that takes the turns of several characters to execute. In singleplayer only one character needs to execute the attack for it to start (if requirements are met), but in multiplayer all players involved must execute the same attack for it to start.
The idea behind the game was to make a multiplayer ff-style game. I've also worked hard to make sure that the gameplay is "free", that is everyone can move around and do battles as they like with their own hero, but teamplay is always rewarded.
Story
Not much to say about this yet, but i definitely want to have it play out in the starcraft universe, just maybe on some remote planet far from the normal sc2 storyline.
Because of the size restrictions of sc2 maps i think i want to make a few story driven coop chapters and perhaps end that with an open map that will be more orpg style and with some sort of arena where people can compare their chars to eachother.
Also this might be good place to take suggestions for a name, was thinking of something neutral like "The Colonies of X" but open to any suggestion.
Iv'e been messing around with it since i posted and it seems it had something to do with the model object. Every other setting in the actor was set to default values and i messed around with them just to make sure. Lastly i tried changing the model and the problem dissapeared.
The model i used first was "Firebat Attack Flame" which is a LaunchFX type model and i made a new one of CModel type instead.
Hmm, sorry i think i missunderstood you the first time. If you mean that you want units to have a "line of sight" so they only attack units in front of them then thats easy :P
If you open the data editor and find the "behaviors" and create a new behavior of type "buff". Then you go in to "Behavior - Modification+", go to "unit", scroll down a bit and find "Radar Arc". This is the arc of detection for the unit, should be set to 360 degrees per default. Change that to something like 90, and you can also change the radar range in the value over that one.
Next, apply the behavior to the unit, either by going to the "Units" tab, find the unit, and add the behavior in "Behavior - Behaviors+" OR by adding the behavior to a unit through a trigger.
I hope that was what you wanted and that it helps. Its possible through handling everything in triggers like i said first, but that would probly start lagging the game if you have more than a couple of units at once.
Im pretty sure you cant modify that process with triggers, and as far as i can tell you can only set some predifined target filters for a weapon in the data editor.
You could however disable auto-attack for the unit you want to modify, then create triggers that makes that unit attack but with your own conditions.
Im trying to attach a model actor to a unit using "Attach Actor to Unit". And it works.. 9 out of 10 times that is. The other times i get the error message in the thread title and no model shows up.
Does anyone have a clue as to why this is happening? I find it strange since it works most times. Also worth noting is that i put waits before and after this operation to hopefully seperate it from anything that was interfering, but the problem persists.
Just have to say, this looks friggin sweet. If you could get multiple levels and rooms to work with groups of zombies following through the levels it could would probly have a real nice resident evil survial feel to it.
Looked through a cople of pages. (As others, i might be overly sensitive here, make sure you decide for yourself)
gv_word[2][ 250] = "foxhunt"; - Not a bad word, but fox hunting itself is a controversial subject and might offend some people.
gv_word[2][ 286] = "potbound"; - The meaning of the word seem to be completely different and innocent, but it could be taken as a reference to pot (marijuana)
gv_word[2][ 360] = "twaddler"; - Someone who talks or writes nonsense, seems to be releated to "twat"
gv_word[2][ 380] = "cracklings"; - An evolved form of banelings. Just joking, but was looking for drug releated words, and it does contain "crack". But that might be too oversensitive even for blizzard. Same goes for gv_word[3][ 74] = "cracker-barrel";
gv_word[2][ 517] = "abortive"; - An aborted fetus. A big no-no.
gv_word[2][ 708] = "unbuttoned"; - Someone might take this as sexual innuendo.
gv_word[2][ 755] = "boniness"; - Sexual innuendo!
gv_word[2][ 761] = "execute"; - Im sure someone else saw this earlier, but if not.. falls under "violent act"
gv_word[3][ 16] = "neoconservative"; - A very politically loaded word
gv_word[2][ 777] = "firebrat"; - Firebats annoying younger nephew.. (sorry, i just had to :P)
Is anyone here a member of sc2testers? Been trying to register on their website, but cant get a activation mail. Random mapster testers are good, but its hard to get a large number at once..
you obviously have not been following the thread as well as you think.. People who want to expose it are NOT doing it because they think it's right. Nobody here think it's OK to open maps. Everyone here think it's a problem. So stop misinterpretting and consequently putting words in our mouths.
The topic here is: Whether it's right to talk about map cracking if it's to spread publicity about it. The main re-occuring arguement supporting map cracking is that it raises awareness to a problem, NOT BECAUSE IT'S OK TO DO SO!!!
Sexual education in high schools do not mean that the teachers want the teens to have sex, just to be aware of the risks if they do so.
Really? I thought i finally understood some of the "other sides" reasons. I think i just read a post about how people who want too keep their maps locked are greedy and selfish for not wanting to share and i was addressing that. If i missinterpreted the meaning of the poster then i apologize, but to me that sounded like "people should not be able to lock their maps".
But if it is as you say and no one is for cracking or opening maps, then i really dont understand. Because as i understand it its impossible to protect the information in your map or your bank if anyone can read it. And the only people who can change this is blizzard. Now spamming blizzard about the problem to get their attention is one thing, but i really dont agree with making the problem worse in order to get them to fix it.
Educating people in how to protect their maps is alright, but there is no need to allow detailed descriptions on exactly how to break the protection when there is no way to protect against it. And personally i think a lot of exposure will probly get the attention of the kind of people that is the real problem, the ones that will abuse the flaw and not so much the friendly map maker who might as well mail or pm you for help.
Edit: As for your sex-ed example, that is to educate the children just in case they do anyway. But i dont see a reason why we want people who unlocks map to know how to properly unlock maps just in case they will do it anyway.
I like your approach. Something that can already be done shouldn't be brought to light because it could cause what already happens to happen more. . . so let's bury it and pretend it can't be done while we wait for Blizzard to fix it. . .
Oh, but that doesn't actually solve anything, does it?
All this talk about whether it acctually solves anything, or helps any is pretty useless. Obviously, if you dont want unlocking to happend you will try to not expose this flaw to people, if on the other hand you dont agree that it is a problem then exposing it makes all the sense in the world.
Hiding behind the fact that "someone else will do it anyway, so i might as well" is not OK (You can take any other example, like crime, unecthical behavior and the same will be true). Then again not all people agree it is a problem, but then the argument lies in that instead.
.
Edit: So i guess the question is: Should people be able to hide information in their maps? And if someone obfuscates the information in the map, is that a bad thing?
If someone does not share information they have with someone who asks, is that bad?
And if someone learns skills from this site and then puts it to use in a map, should he open the code of what he learned (or things he figured out for himself too?) for all the community to see (And is it the same if we talk about "real" programming, like someone learns C from a site)?
Again, please show me where I said, "SC2Mapster supports stealing maps."
This website is the top resource for SC2 Maps. Period. Regardless of what you search on "how to do <this> in SC2 maps" SC2Mapster will show up first.
You did not say that, but i think it is the wish of map makers that sc2mapster would not tolarate unlocking (or stealing) maps or supplying tutorials on how it could be done.
Maybe not doing anything can be considered keeping a neutral policy towards map unlocking, but it does in fact help people to unlock maps by allowing it on this site.
As you said, this is the top resource for sc2 maps. Which is the reason that having a tutorial on this site does have an impact. If this thread is the first thing that pops up in google, that this thread no doubt helps people who want to unlock maps.
It's not about whether it can be unlocked or not, but about whether sc2mapsters should support it or not. Just because others reveal how to unlock maps is no excuse for this site to do it.
And besides, as a previous poster showed, sc2mapster is one of the first results when you google "unlocking sc2 map" or similar (and i cant find any other site that show how to do it). Which makes this site currently one of the top resources on how to unlock maps.
I think it's in really bad taste to have a tutorial on how to unlock maps on this forum.
A lock is still a lock even if it can be picked, and you should not open it. In the same way that a unlocked house does not mean you have the right to walk in and have a look at the furniture.
Also, most people that does not make maps dont have any idea of how to open locked maps or that it is even possible, and for these people it is far more likely that they will stumble on a tutorial on how to unlock maps rather than that they will out of the blue get the idea that modifying maps might be possible and type in "sc2 map unlocker" in google. Im sure there are thousands of people out there who has got their own ideas on how to "improve" nexus wars.
0
Hah, agree. I just thought that was what people knew, guess i underestimated the sc2mapster community.
I thought as much myself. But there are both advantages and disadvantages to using keyboard. I personally like just only keyboard because i think it feels more relaxed. A downside is you use "left" and "right" buttons to change targets, but left and right is not always left or right. Also since enemies are auto-assigned numbers for normal fights they dont always get ordered in any foreseeable order.
As programmer pointed out, that is ye' old WASD movement, almost. I dont really use it for acctually moving the units, but for the keyboard controls of the UI.
It might be possible but there are a few problems with it. Firstly, there are a few more things i need to consider in spells if length and angles between units can differ on a much higher scale than now. Secondly, for multiplayer games it will probably get a bit crowded if 6 players (which is the maximum) are going to move around at once. And lastly there just does not exist any animation that makes moving around while facing your target look good :P
I like the feedback so far, keep it comming :)
0
Thanks for the feedback. Yea, i know the UI could use a makeover, but for the moment that is pretty low on the to-do list. Out of curiousity, what part specificly did you think looks bad (or worst), and what looks alright?
About the system, i know it might not be for everyone to have such a slow system where you have to wait for other players and coordinate with them. But thats the whole reason i added a singleplayer mode, because it feels like a safer bet. That being said, i still want to try and make it work for multiplayer. I know this game might not end up working well with the popularity system, but it just wouldent be fun for me if i dident feel i was making something different.
The group attack system works differently in multi vs singleplayer so it might not be clear from watching this video how it works. In multiplayer, the group attacks work by adding any player who chooses a group attack to a "queue" that corresponds to that attack. They remain there as long as they dont take another action and when the requirements for that attack is fullfilled (for example, 1 marauder, 1 high templar present) the required players are taken from that queue and starts the attack. And that is why i have the dialog to the upper right, so that others can see which players are queued up for what, and what class they are.
It really is easier to understand in game than it is to explain :P. The hard part is probably to acctually get people to want to coordinate with others.
0
This is a preview of a map i've been working on, on and off, for a while. Although i wont have time to work on it for a couple of weeks i thought it was time to post something and get some feedback.
Gameplay
The gameplay is something like a final fantasy style game, though it is much closer to the old snes game "chrono trigger". The combat is ATB-turn based which means each character can input a command at any time, but needs to wait for a progress bar to fill after a completed action.
One of the main mechanics of the gameplay are "group attacks" which is an attack that takes the turns of several characters to execute. In singleplayer only one character needs to execute the attack for it to start (if requirements are met), but in multiplayer all players involved must execute the same attack for it to start.
The idea behind the game was to make a multiplayer ff-style game. I've also worked hard to make sure that the gameplay is "free", that is everyone can move around and do battles as they like with their own hero, but teamplay is always rewarded.
Story
Not much to say about this yet, but i definitely want to have it play out in the starcraft universe, just maybe on some remote planet far from the normal sc2 storyline.
Because of the size restrictions of sc2 maps i think i want to make a few story driven coop chapters and perhaps end that with an open map that will be more orpg style and with some sort of arena where people can compare their chars to eachother.
Also this might be good place to take suggestions for a name, was thinking of something neutral like "The Colonies of X" but open to any suggestion.
0
Iv'e been messing around with it since i posted and it seems it had something to do with the model object. Every other setting in the actor was set to default values and i messed around with them just to make sure. Lastly i tried changing the model and the problem dissapeared.
The model i used first was "Firebat Attack Flame" which is a LaunchFX type model and i made a new one of CModel type instead.
0
Hmm, sorry i think i missunderstood you the first time. If you mean that you want units to have a "line of sight" so they only attack units in front of them then thats easy :P
If you open the data editor and find the "behaviors" and create a new behavior of type "buff". Then you go in to "Behavior - Modification+", go to "unit", scroll down a bit and find "Radar Arc". This is the arc of detection for the unit, should be set to 360 degrees per default. Change that to something like 90, and you can also change the radar range in the value over that one.
Next, apply the behavior to the unit, either by going to the "Units" tab, find the unit, and add the behavior in "Behavior - Behaviors+" OR by adding the behavior to a unit through a trigger.
I hope that was what you wanted and that it helps. Its possible through handling everything in triggers like i said first, but that would probly start lagging the game if you have more than a couple of units at once.
0
Im pretty sure you cant modify that process with triggers, and as far as i can tell you can only set some predifined target filters for a weapon in the data editor.
You could however disable auto-attack for the unit you want to modify, then create triggers that makes that unit attack but with your own conditions.
0
Im trying to attach a model actor to a unit using "Attach Actor to Unit". And it works.. 9 out of 10 times that is. The other times i get the error message in the thread title and no model shows up.
Does anyone have a clue as to why this is happening? I find it strange since it works most times. Also worth noting is that i put waits before and after this operation to hopefully seperate it from anything that was interfering, but the problem persists.
0
Just have to say, this looks friggin sweet. If you could get multiple levels and rooms to work with groups of zombies following through the levels it could would probly have a real nice resident evil survial feel to it.
0
Looked through a cople of pages. (As others, i might be overly sensitive here, make sure you decide for yourself)
gv_word[2][ 250] = "foxhunt"; - Not a bad word, but fox hunting itself is a controversial subject and might offend some people.
gv_word[2][ 286] = "potbound"; - The meaning of the word seem to be completely different and innocent, but it could be taken as a reference to pot (marijuana)
gv_word[2][ 360] = "twaddler"; - Someone who talks or writes nonsense, seems to be releated to "twat"
gv_word[2][ 380] = "cracklings"; - An evolved form of banelings. Just joking, but was looking for drug releated words, and it does contain "crack". But that might be too oversensitive even for blizzard. Same goes for gv_word[3][ 74] = "cracker-barrel";
gv_word[2][ 517] = "abortive"; - An aborted fetus. A big no-no.
gv_word[2][ 708] = "unbuttoned"; - Someone might take this as sexual innuendo.
gv_word[2][ 755] = "boniness"; - Sexual innuendo!
gv_word[2][ 761] = "execute"; - Im sure someone else saw this earlier, but if not.. falls under "violent act"
gv_word[3][ 16] = "neoconservative"; - A very politically loaded word
gv_word[2][ 777] = "firebrat"; - Firebats annoying younger nephew.. (sorry, i just had to :P)
0
Is anyone here a member of sc2testers? Been trying to register on their website, but cant get a activation mail. Random mapster testers are good, but its hard to get a large number at once..
0
Really? I thought i finally understood some of the "other sides" reasons. I think i just read a post about how people who want too keep their maps locked are greedy and selfish for not wanting to share and i was addressing that. If i missinterpreted the meaning of the poster then i apologize, but to me that sounded like "people should not be able to lock their maps".
But if it is as you say and no one is for cracking or opening maps, then i really dont understand. Because as i understand it its impossible to protect the information in your map or your bank if anyone can read it. And the only people who can change this is blizzard. Now spamming blizzard about the problem to get their attention is one thing, but i really dont agree with making the problem worse in order to get them to fix it.
Educating people in how to protect their maps is alright, but there is no need to allow detailed descriptions on exactly how to break the protection when there is no way to protect against it. And personally i think a lot of exposure will probly get the attention of the kind of people that is the real problem, the ones that will abuse the flaw and not so much the friendly map maker who might as well mail or pm you for help.
Edit: As for your sex-ed example, that is to educate the children just in case they do anyway. But i dont see a reason why we want people who unlocks map to know how to properly unlock maps just in case they will do it anyway.
0
All this talk about whether it acctually solves anything, or helps any is pretty useless. Obviously, if you dont want unlocking to happend you will try to not expose this flaw to people, if on the other hand you dont agree that it is a problem then exposing it makes all the sense in the world.
Hiding behind the fact that "someone else will do it anyway, so i might as well" is not OK (You can take any other example, like crime, unecthical behavior and the same will be true). Then again not all people agree it is a problem, but then the argument lies in that instead.
.
Edit: So i guess the question is: Should people be able to hide information in their maps? And if someone obfuscates the information in the map, is that a bad thing?
If someone does not share information they have with someone who asks, is that bad?
And if someone learns skills from this site and then puts it to use in a map, should he open the code of what he learned (or things he figured out for himself too?) for all the community to see (And is it the same if we talk about "real" programming, like someone learns C from a site)?
0
You did not say that, but i think it is the wish of map makers that sc2mapster would not tolarate unlocking (or stealing) maps or supplying tutorials on how it could be done.
Maybe not doing anything can be considered keeping a neutral policy towards map unlocking, but it does in fact help people to unlock maps by allowing it on this site.
As you said, this is the top resource for sc2 maps. Which is the reason that having a tutorial on this site does have an impact. If this thread is the first thing that pops up in google, that this thread no doubt helps people who want to unlock maps.
0
It's not about whether it can be unlocked or not, but about whether sc2mapsters should support it or not. Just because others reveal how to unlock maps is no excuse for this site to do it.
And besides, as a previous poster showed, sc2mapster is one of the first results when you google "unlocking sc2 map" or similar (and i cant find any other site that show how to do it). Which makes this site currently one of the top resources on how to unlock maps.
0
I think it's in really bad taste to have a tutorial on how to unlock maps on this forum. A lock is still a lock even if it can be picked, and you should not open it. In the same way that a unlocked house does not mean you have the right to walk in and have a look at the furniture.
Also, most people that does not make maps dont have any idea of how to open locked maps or that it is even possible, and for these people it is far more likely that they will stumble on a tutorial on how to unlock maps rather than that they will out of the blue get the idea that modifying maps might be possible and type in "sc2 map unlocker" in google. Im sure there are thousands of people out there who has got their own ideas on how to "improve" nexus wars.